The whole 'Von Braun in Antactica to collect moon rocks' is one of the most bizarre of all of the HB claims (and that is really saying something!).

This form of argument was being discussed in the retroreflector thread. Rogan tries to trump Phil's evidence with a deductive or categorical argument. That form of rebuttal is out of place here.

As I remember, the exchange went something like this:

1. Phil mentions the moon rocks as evidence in favor of the authenticity of Apollo.
2. Rogan brings up Von Braun's trip to Antarctica.
3. Phil points out that lunar meteorites don't look like the Apollo samples.
4. Rogan switches horses and mentions that some lunar sample were retrieved robotically.
5. Penn points out to Rogan that his Von Braun and robotic arguments are mutually exclusive.
6. Rogan acknowledges that and says, "But both arguments do cancel out the absolute proof that the moon rocks come from the moon."

Rogan argues in terms of logical possibility. The number of logical possibilities is perhaps infinite. Among them are the possibilities that Von Braun retrieved the rocks, or that a robot retrieved them. Logically, it doesn't matter that the possibilities are absurd.

Rogan's logical possibilities carry absolutely no weight here. Historical investigations are not pursued or argued categorically. Phil's argument--if he would have had an opportunity to state more of it--would have consisted of presenting the explanation that best explains and is best supported by the existing evidence.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at subverting a debate. Instead of looking at the evidence, they trick you into trying to come up with the one killer, smoking-gun proof of the moon landings. As Neverfly points out, whatever you say, they just cast doubt on it. They imagine other possibilites, or they find anomalies or elements that puzzle them.

The balance in the debate is truly bizarre: evidence and understanding on one side, imagination and ignorance on the other.